1. Field
This application relates to easels, specifically rotating artist easels and display easels.
2. Background of the Invention
Most every visual artist and presenter requires an easel to display and secure their articles. Many easel designs have been devised to facilitate the needs of the user for functionality, and ease of use.
Recently, the creation of art has increasingly focused more on the artist, their insights, forms of expression, their understanding, and an effective use of media—so less distraction for the artist makes for a more pleasurable painting experience. This ease of use is also true of presenters that use an easel, and who would like or need to rotate their presentation for whatever reason, and would also prefer an uninterrupted flow in their presentation and free from distractions. The presenter and artist now prefer to focus on the subject at hand, rather than on the object.
Originally, the simple standard easel employed three legs, was attached at the top, and offered a bar across the front to rest the article on. Other easels, used horizontal rests that slide on a single vertical bar (or bars) to adjust the height. Some easels even offered rotational capabilities. However, a simple and inexpensive easel that grips the article securely, rotates the article 360 degrees in either direction, and can convert the standard easel and camera tripod into a rotating easel has been elusive. I found much prior art in easels, however all have fallen short in being able to deliver all the attributes and endowments my embodiment offers.
US Patent—“Easel” US392639181 1A1 1 to Melvin C. Vincent (1975) claims a rotational feature, but does not explicitly claim 360 degrees of rotation in either direction. The rotating mechanism is different from my embodiment, and so are the clamping features. US Patent—“Rotatable Easel” U.S. Pat. No. 6,712,328 B1 to Richard Joseph Morton (2004) also claims a rotational feature of “at least” 90 degrees, but not explicitly 360 degrees. Again the apparatus to rotate the canvas is different, and so is the securing mechanism. US Patent “Easel, especially for canvas frames (stretchers), for use in painting” U.S. Pat. No. 6,390,433 B1 to Vladimir Kasa-Djukic (2002) claims 360 degrees of rotation but also by a different means than my embodiment, and also employs a different clamping mechanism than my embodiment. US Patent “Paint easel and display rack assembly” U.S. Pat. No. 6,698,705 B2 (2004) to Toghanian Jahanbakhsh claims adjustable angles and rotational qualities but not specifically 360 degrees. This embodiment is again different from my embodiment in the angles of rotation, the method for changing the angle of the composition, and the securing mechanism. US Patent “Multi-position presentation easel” U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,952 B2 (2005) to Ronald D. Cook & Pamela J. Emken claims rotational features. Again the apparatus to rotate the canvas is different, and so is the securing mechanism. US Patent U.S. Pat. No. 4,109,892 “Adjustable easel” (1977) to John P. Hartung claims 360 degree rotation and a tilting feature. Here again, the rotating mechanism is different from my embodiment, and so are the clamping and tilting features. US Patent “Adjustable easel for supporting a work piece” 2008-06-03 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,380,765) to Harold H. Schiff claims rotational and tilting features and is on the market as the “Windmill Easel”. However, this embodiment has a different rotating mechanism than my embodiment, and also has a dissimilar clamping mechanism. The “Windmill Easel” and my device are dissimilar in design and engineering, with the “Windmill Easel” being much more complicated, costlier to manufacture, and this is reflected in a price of ten times more to the consumer. Considering that most artists have a small budget to work with, the “Windmill Easel,” is more of a luxury item for established artists than an economical way of providing these tilting and rotational features to mainstream artists. The “Windmill Easel” is not an inexpensive conversion kit to modify many standard easel stands and camera tripods into a rotatable easel. Nor is my embodiment “in the spirit” of the “Windmill Easel”.
None of the prior art that I could find solved all the technical and practical problems of cost and versatility that my embodiments have resolved. After untangling the problems I encountered in the design and building of the prototypes, the prior art I then found employed rotational features more complicated and costly than my design, and the prior art wasn't specifically designed as a conversion kit.